ErosWired

1. From a practical perspective, you won’t find that many anon cumdumps setting up hosting arrangements in hotels where there are potential barriers to entry. It would be foolish, for instance, to advertise a door-open setup with your room door open…if the guy couldn’t get past the front door without a key card of his own after dark. Likewise, there’s no advantage to setting up in a hotel where Tops would have to parade by the front desk - a certain percentage of them would simply turn away rather than be seen by anyone, so the cumdump would be automatically limiting his prospects. I will only select a hotel for hosting if the room entrances open to the outside and can be accessed without passing through a lobby. Granted, that removes a layer of security one might have, but I when I tell the world of men that my door is open and my ass is theirs to take, I’m already prepared to take whatever comes through that door. When evaluating a cumdump to fuck, I recommend that you take the arrangements carefully into account - if the cumdump is set up in an impractical location with barriers to access it may well mean that you’re dealing with someone inexperienced. 2. When I advertise, ‘Door’s open, come on in,’ I mean precisely that. I rig the door so that it will not latch shut and can simply be pushed open. I expect that the Top will take that initiative because I intend that the first thing he sees when he opens the door is going to confirm to him that he has made the right decision to come - I am going to be in position for him. If I had to get up to open a door, there would be no such moment on entry. Most Tops do simply push and enter, but occasionally one will insist on knocking, and more rarely, will refuse to enter until I come to the door, which is really quite irritating. Don’t be that guy. This is not the place for you to demonstrate your manners, this is the place for you to come in and fuck a slut. It is possible, depending on the cumdump and his setup and arrangements, that you could encounter another Top present using the holes. In my own experience, that is much the exception rather than the rule. Most anon encounters involve men seeing to their own needs, often covertly and in need of discretion. Many will not approach if they think another man is present or may soon be. Even those who are keen for some group action seldom bring the group themselves; I am very often asked if I can invite other men to join, but I find this risky in that I have as good a chance of frightening someone off by proposing group play as I do enticing them. I usually just tell men they’re welcome to bring as many as they want with them - I’ll take all of them. How naked you get for sex in any situation is a matter if personal preference, and it runs the gamut. I’ve had men remain fully clothed and simply unzip, and I’ve had them strip down to every level from there to nude. (I’m always slightly bemused by a man who will take off every stitch of clothing to full-body-contact fuck me…with his hat on.) What you choose to say to the cumdump, if anything, is also purely discretionary, and a seasoned cumdump will take his cue from what you do or don’t say. Some men are friendly and downright chatty; some say no more than what’s necessary; some incorporate their talk into their play in sensual, filthy, and/or degrading ways - I get told I’m a whore and a faggot quite a lot and it seems to invigorate them - and sometimes they don’t say a single word. One young man in Louisville has bred me several times, and has not uttered a syllable beyond a heavy, satisfied sigh while he unloads in me. For all I know he’s mute. You do you. In the event that you should find yourself in an anon, impromptu group sharing an ass, there is no rulebook to follow about how to behave. You just go with it. My advice is to be observant, and be conscious of the needs, appetites and tastes that the other men express. Enter into it in the spirit of a mutually shared pleasure, and strive to ensure that everyone is able to participate to the level that he wishes, without pressure to perform. Be yourself and don’t worry about what the others may be thinking - your open sexuality will be a turn-on. Importantly, do not monopolize the holes. Make sure the cocks are getting their turns, rotating through several times until spent. The worst thing Tops can do in these situations, I find, is stand apart at a distance, watching wordlessly until one finishes fucking. It simply makes the one fucking feel put on the spot and under pressure to both perform and to hurry. But again, I think you’ll find that most times it will just be you and the cunt in the room. Don’t be hesitant, and don’t be bashful! Cumdumps like me were put on earth to ensure that Tops like you never have to go a single day without fucking a warm, wet hole if you want it. It’s tragic to me when I think that right now, this moment, somewhere there’s a Top beating off in his hand and wishing he could fuck someone, and my ass is sitting here not being fucked. Go out and get you some. And if fate ever brings you to my open door, don’t knock. Just come on in and help yourself.

You explain the various supplements, strategies and techniques that you’re using to manage the condition, but you don’t mention whether you’re actually under the care of a professional who is treating it, whether you take any sort of prescription to mitigate the worst of the impulsivity, and so forth. It might be helpful if we understood your circumstance a little more clearly. (But please don’t feel under any obligation to share more than you’re comfortable sharing.)

Not just depth, but range, penetration, angle, tempo and momentum. He might have enjoyed a bit more leverage if he had gripped the bottom’s body, or plumbed a trifle deeper had he forced the legs apart, but a superb demonstration of a fucksmith at work. The wet, squishing sound coming from the cunt is the mark of excellence. It’s a pity he felt obliged to pull out to shoot for the benefit of the camera, but we can well imagine how it must be when he is allowed to work without distraction. I suggest that this clip should be mandatory showing on screens at batthouses and sex clubs, as inspiration and instruction to other Tops.

Only one of the responses so far has challenged your categorization of the participants of this forum into the three highly specific groups you describe, yet almost all of them explain that they, as you, do not fall into any of your categories. That would seem to be evidence that your categorization is quite wrong. I say that it is. The types you describe exist here, but you describe all of them at the extreme end of their behavior, and such persons represent a small minority here. Perhaps those of them you have encountered have made such an overwhelming impression on you that you conflate their views with the more moderate views of the larger minority of like-minded members, and then extend it as an umbrella over the rest of us. But we don’t fit into your categories because that isn’t how we actually are. This site is about, and heavily participated in and content-supplied by, men who simply love breeding and being bred by other men. It’s in the name, for God’s sake. Coming on here with a rant about how you feel isolated because you can’t find anyone who just enjoys fucking tells us that you have either spent all your time here in the Backrooms with the sketchy lot, or that you haven’t been paying attention, presuming you’ve actually read any of our posts at all. For the record, I don’t fit into your categories either. Not remotely, in any respect. I absolutely love fucking, for the sake of fucking. I practice it, I’m good at it, and I plan to keep on doing it because fucking is what I’m made for.

That sort of gets to the heart of the question - if a man knew that the sex he would get in the future isn’t going to be as good as the sex he keeps in hid mind as the best, would it cause him to possibly think twice about going out looking for sex and just end up getting off at home? It’s not that everything that isn’t the best sex automatically becomes ‘bad’ sex, but going forward from best necessarily means that the hope shifts to finding ‘great’ or ‘good’ sex and being content with it. But does the knowledge that a better experience is possible color all those future encounters, however positive, and make them just that bit less? Might that knowledge downgrade what you might have otherwise considered ‘great’ to merely ‘good’? From ‘good’ to ‘acceptable’? From ‘acceptable’ to ‘passable’? When you start to think about the relative chance that any given random hookup will result in remarkable sex, you realize that most of it is going to be average (acceptable); if a man is influenced by the above thinking, that means the average hookup is likely to seem passable, and as you ask, why would you go out looking for that? The answer, I suppose, is that something is better than nothing, as is demonstrated by the fact that when I host I always get a sharp uptick in takers right about 2:30am - when their night’s prowl for Mr. Desirable has come up empty and they still need a fuck. They then use the anon hole available without much regard to what’s great or passable because the’ve got to have something. I don’t mind being something - it’s what I’m meant for. But it makes me wonder how many men might be giving up on sex before they ever get to my hole and discover that it was worth their effort.

You have no idea. Time ceases to have any meaning.

Obviously so… Just before the pandemic began I was helping a young guy who had wanted to Top me but was having an issue with losing his erection when it came time to get on with it. He was just about 22 at the time, which is a bit younger than I would generally work with, but I had the impression that he needed someone safe who he could learn to relax and become more confident around. He started to have his problem at first, but I made sure it was all about him, and once I got him inside me, he did fine. More than fine, actually - when he finally came inside me I could feel the force of it run through his entire body, and afterward he just clung to me and panted for several minutes. ”You okay?” I eventually asked, and after a minute he said, “I just had the most powerful orgasm of my entire life.” Which, of course, to him was monumental, but I was thinking: Of your entire 22-year life. Oh, sweetie, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. But it made me a little sad at the same time because I thought how nice it would be for sex to feel that new and potent snd unexplored again, and I knew that was something my well-worn cunt couldn’t recapture.

One day you are going to have the best sex of your life. You might have some good sex after that, but nothing will ever quite measure up to that one experience. I think we often go into each new sexual experience in the hope that that one will be the peak, not knowing what the view will look like from our personal orgasmic summit. We always imagine that even greater splendor awaits if we can just climb a little higher (or get a little kinkier) next time. But what if you knew that you had already had the best sex you’ll ever have, that it’s behind you now, and nothing you’ll experience in the future will ever be as good? What if you know you’re never going to feel anything that good again, let alone anything better? There comes a point, as a man gets older, that certain realities sink in. The car has 150,000 miles on it and it no longer has that new-car scent. It still drives great, but doesn’t accelerate the way it used to. Doesn’t get the mileage. Its better days are behind it. Or, you might be a younger man who’s had an injury that limits future prospects. I don’t mean to cloud anybody’s day thinking about this kind of thing, but I’m curious how different men approach this philosophically. What kind of attitude do you take toward sex if you know you’ve already had the best you’re going to get?

The replies to this are going to be tediously predictable and similar, so I have to think a little harder on the question to figure out what it really implies. You’re asking men on a site devoted to bareback fucking if a) they’re okay if a Top uses a condom b) as long as they get the cum some other way. Well - why bother fucking at all, then? Why not just go to the bathhouse and panhandle with a tin cup labeled “loads only”? Why bother with all that irksome and laborious cleaning out and painful anal intercourse when you could just get on with the business of efficient cum collecting? Why not just walk around with a container giving handjobs until it’s full? (Note that a question like this isn’t often asked in a cocksucking context - nobody likes giving head to a condom.) How can anyone answer this question in the affirmative without waving a flag that says “It’s all about me and the vital importance of getting what I want”? For me, I have to answer it the other way around - I very much prefer the Top not use a condom, but it’s all about him; and he’s under no obligation to cum in, on or near me. If he does, it’s an honor and a gift of his intimacy. If he doesn’t but still enjoyed his fuck, I’ve once again fulfilled my purpose.

It’s actually not that surprising if you think about it, that the bottom would tend to have face available to the camera more often than the Top - it’s just a question of camera angle. First of all, if it’s cocksucking, you can’t avoid involving the bottom’s face - it’s his face that’s getting fucked. But even if he’s being cunted in the other end, the chances are that at least part of the time his head will be down at the same level as his ass because he’ll be either lying prone or bent over. That being so, the camera angle that catches his ass is naturally also going to catch his face in frame. By the same token, the Top’s face is usually at some sort if perpendiculsr fistance from the bottom’s simply because of the position he has to be in to mount him. And, most shots that show penetrationcan only really be accomplished either from behind the Top, below him, or from the Top’s point-if-view. So it doesn’t seem to me as much of a conspiracy to expose bottom more than Tops as it is a matter of logistics. And, of course, the fact that nothing is as telling as being able to watch the expressions on a guy’s face when he’s being cunted.

Which is, of course, why “gay reversion therapy” is utterly without merit and deeply injurious to the unfortunate victim of it. I have actually never encountered a flogger made of rubber, and I’ve been flogged with a variety of materials. I’ve been flogged with floggers that were on fire, and it would never have crossed my mind that anyone would use rubber. I can think of a few reasons why one wouldn’t want to make one out of rubber, even if not on the receiving end…

My former master says that when a man says “I’ll never do that” it means he can have him doing it within seven sessions. After six years as his owned property, I believe him. I really didn’t like any kind of unnecessary pain to be involved in sex, which was, I figured, supposed to be about maximizing feelings of pleasure. Was it a good idea, therefore, to submit my body to a Dominant Sadist? No. He…expanded my definition of pleasure. Or rather, he erased the line between pleasure and pain so that it became difficult to tell one from the other. He did this mainly by training me to have dry orgasms (basically anal orgasms) on his verbal command, and then forcing me to have them over and over and over in rapid succession until they became a form of torture. By the time he was done, he was skewering my testicles with .18 gauge needles and I was agreeing to him doing it. Another item: Eating my own cum. It had once been a barrier, but he required me to “clean it up” every time, and that meant doing whatever I needed to do to get it into my mouth and swallow it so it would be gone. (He never provided anything to wipe up with, and as I was always naked I couldn’t use my clothes.) Now, I can do it without any problem, mine or anyone else’s. Never doubt that a man can be trained to do something debauched or depraved, even an intelligent person with an independent spirit, a strong will, and an aversion to the act in question. Do, however, doubt that he can be mind-controlled, brainwashed, or “reprogrammed”, which is something different; the CIA spent about a decade in the late 60s and early 70s trying very hard to figure out how to do this (because they’re evil) and even they finally had to concede that it can’t be done. It is possible to train or condition a man to do something that goes against his grain, but you can’t train or condition him to be something that he never was. This is an important distinction, because without any doubt, my conditioning under my former Master converted me into a submissive cumdump with the unshakable belief that that is my proper role and my duty. He didn’t just condition me to do something - he changed what I am. But he was able to do it because he has a gift of being able to look at people and see who they really are deep inside; and he knew that deep inside, there was a potential cumdump he could draw out. Any of you who find that you are doing something you never thought you would - deep down inside you lurked a you that always knew you could.

That’s three sentences, so…

Informed about and attends to sexual health? This lot? I never cease to be amazed at the face-palming level of ignorance about sexual health, safety and plain, prudent common sense that abounds on these boards. I don’t know where all these highly responsible barebackers you’re talking about hang out, but they’re fairly thin on the ground in general if what’s posted in this forum is any guide. You offer yourself and your practices up as the example of why insemination doesn’t pose a health risk - and good for you, for being so responsible. But you simply aren’t typical of the majority. On the one hand we have men who lack even a rudimentary understanding of sexual disease cause and prevention, and on the other we find ourselves knee-deep in lunatics who actually want to either transmit or contract pathogens to become part of some nonsensical “brotherhood” of disease-ridden imbeciles. Health harms do not result? Whew! That’s a relief - I could have sworn that the AIDS that nearly ended my life was the result of some guy cumming inside me. Glad we cleared that up. And the fact that I will always test positive for syphilis exposure now - good thing that didn’t have anything to do with barebacking. Because no barebacker would be irresponsible enough to transmit an STD, right? Please be serious. Bareback sex is, without any doubt, a risky practice, and we all know it. Sexually transmitted disease is common, and recent statistics show it to be on the increase in some areas. Anecdotal accounts from the men on these boards commonly attest to the frequency that we contract STDs from bareback sex - pick any thread you like about how often we get an STD, and the evidence is plain. If all men were as responsible, careful, and conscientious about their sexual practice as you describe yourself to be, your claim might have some resemblance to reality. But most are not, and the harms that result are real - so real, in fact, that I have to take medicine every day now because a guy fucked me raw. You can’t sugar-coat that pill.

I’m not sure what happened there - yes, naturally it wasn’t you I was quoting, but rather the poster to whom you had responded. I must have drawn the quoted matter from the quoted block within your reply - it’s unfortunate that the system appears to forwardly-attribute quoted matter to the quoter. My apologies for the confusion. Something quite similar happened with me just a day or two ago when I found myself assigned someone else’s words.

You appear to be confusing bottoms with lowest animal life forms, belonging to the phylum porifera, the sponges. I can understand the possible confusion; members of porifera are characterized by their ability to allow fluids to enter and exit their bodies through a number of relatively large pores or orifices. As far as that goes, one must acknowledge a passing resemblance. Aside from that, however, I’m afraid I can’t subscribe to your philosophy. I freely admit that I’m sexually submissive to men, that I suffer myself to be regularly cunted like a breeding animal, and even that there is a man who at this moment possesses a formal deed granting him ownership of my physical body for his use and pleasure. But I reject any claim that I am a lower form of life simply because my place is to serve. In fact, I would strongly discourage that kind of self-description, because it’s the very sort of thing that a man of a certain predatory type might use to justify his actions. The sentiment you express is not universally held. If you speak as though it is, be prepared to be corrected. We are not sponges.

On the other hand, there is an uncomfortably high proportion of respondents on this site who are apologists for the kinds of statements and behavior we see from men who clearly - whether they have met a legal criterion or not - hold the rights and welfare of other men in either indifference or contempt, and are perfectly willing to violate anyone’s sanctity if it gets them what they want. There’s a difference between a man who can’t help hurting me when he’s cunting me and a man who’s actually trying to. That difference lies in his intent, and in the way he is willing to satisfy his appetites at another’s expense. Society discourages this as antisocial behavior broadly, and as it manifests in greater degrees of egregiousness and severity of harm, it has become necessary to codify laws to draw a line to say that there’s a limit to how much of this villainy we’re willing to tolerate. The fact that an action may not meet the legal threshold of a crime does not automatically mean it is acceptable to do. Just because a brute doesn’t use his full strength when he lashes out doesn’t make him any less a brute. While using “predator” and “rape” in a broader sense may reduce the effect of those words in relation to those truly vile predators who commit acts of unquestionable rape, a decision to not apply those words to acts that fall shy of the legal threshold would have the same effect reversed - to minimize the harm and danger in other forms of sexual brutality, violation and nonconsent, and thus give a kind of tacit approval for such behavior to continue. I’m not on board with that. I would elaborate further, but I’ve got to get myself ready to go get brutally violated by my local regular Top, who hasn’t had any ass for two weeks. It’s going to be a long evening.

“There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.” - Oscar Wilde Frankly, I always hope Tops who use and enjoy me will mention me to others. Word of mouth is what builds a network of connections, not sketchy profiles on an app. I’m firmly convinced that the day I had my personal-best gangbang at camp, it was due to men talking. All those guys didn’t just show up at one place off at the edge of the woods at the same by coincidence - it started with a couple, then a few, and suddenly there were a lot of guys there all waiting for their turn at one cunt. Somebody had to have been saying something about it. And whatever they said, it obviously didn’t turn them off.

Your narrow interpretation of the post does not automatically qualify it for censorship - which this site is in any case not heavily subjected to. If you are deeply disturbed by that post, I would advise you to tread very cautiously in other areas of the forum, where that post would seem tame and not particularly outlandish. With regard to @blktone67’s remarks, I might point out that in both instances the scenarios involved either tacit or inferable consent on the part of the bottom. In the first case, he makes it clear that the bottom has changed his mind and permitted the breeding after he has fucked without orgasm for a prolonged period. The fact that he has intentionally withheld his orgasm does not amount to coercion - I’ve had many a long-haul Top fuck me for hours simply because his pleasure is in the fucking, not the cumming. The fact that the bottom has a change if mind somewhere along the way is entirely the bottom’s responsibility. In the second case, the bottom himself removes the condom, then requests that the Top not cum inside. The simple mechanics of sexual intercourse makes it practically impossible to promise anyone that no exchange of fluids will occur, so if the bottom wished to ensure that did not happen, he could simply have left the condom in place. I am a string advocate for a bottom’s right to decide what happens to his body, but it’s the rare Top who has mastered fine control over his orgasm - it’s absurd to expect Tops to be able to judge it correctly every time in the heat of (mutual) passion, let alone control every little secretion. I am not defending @blktone67’s general approach to the question; clearly, he does not consider a bottom’s wishes to be of any consequence if they conflict with his own appetite. I cannot condone such attitudes, but the general trend of discourse on this forum suggests that they are not uncommon, and a relative minority would apply the classification of “rape” as liberally as you seem to do. For my part I believe a large part of my purpose is to service such men and absorb their lusts and “rapes” so that others may be spared their excesses. And I assure you, I know what constitutes an actual rape.

Ah, this takes me back. I played a paladin for quite some time in the early 80s. I still have some if my dice and my first-edition copy of Deities and Demigods. We also branched out into Gamma World and Space Opera for a bit. But this was at the time when computer games were starting to develop, and suddenly there were things that looked and sounded a lot like D&D with a computer game interface and that put paid to rolling dice. And anyway, I went to college, got jobs, and things got real. But I still have the lead figures, too. I painted them meticulously. Now I just play Star Trek Online.

When you say ‘rape videos’, you’re referring to videos of simulated rape scenes, and not footage depicting an actual rape, correct? Because the latter would be documentary evidence of a crime, and I don’t think you’re going to find many rapists willing to broadcast something that could put them in the pen.

This is so very well said, and exactly what I experience.

Your energy is wasted worrying about what “they” think. There is no “they” - there is no monolithic community of gays who all look at you and nod at each other in agreement (or snicker). There are only individuals, and each one of them is going to see you and what you do through the lens of his own experience and biases. And the way he reacts to you outwardly may not even reflect how he feels inwardly. Other posters above have laid out a range of ways in which others might perceive your behavior. Any of them could be correct. All of them may be. None of them mean anything unless you decide they do. Right now, your question suggests that you’ve decided that it does matter what the gay men around you think of your sexual promiscuity, but have you asked yourself why it matters? If you stand to lose a friendship, a job, the respect of someone whose respect you value, or some other social status dependent on others’ assessment of you, there may be reason to make a calculated assessment of what choice is in your better interest. But if it’s just a question of hearing some random sniggering in a darkened room and wondering if people around you are judging you, your analysis might need to be more about your own fears and insecurities and whether they’re causing you unnecessary distress. Almost no one who forms any sort of opinion about your sluttiness (my autocorrect tried to turn that into ‘slut finesse’, which ought to tell us both something) from an objective viewpoint - they’re all going ti come at it with bias, which means that you can always write off at least a portion of the reaction. But why would anyone think badly of such behavior in the first place? What’s inherently questionable about wanton intercourse? The social stigma against sluttiness has deep roots grounded in practical prevention of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, considerations that morphed into morals as they became incorporated into the doctrines of religions developed to control populations. So we sluts are up against a lot of history. And to be fair, some of the concern is still valid. When you and I get cunted a dozen times in a day, our holes do become places with the potential for STDs to have been gathered. By making ourselves as easily availably as humanly possible, we do create temptation for others, who may violate relationship commitments. And by fucking in volume, we do absorb a disproportionate share of the limited resource of Tops available. So certain criticisms may have to be borne, if you wish to be honest with yourself about who you are and what you do. But I think the majority of it is more likely to fall into the category of ill-concealed jealousy by men who would do exactly the same thing if they had the balls to do it that you do; or they’re men of weak character, low confidence and poor self-esteem who are trying to elevate themselves in the eyes of their peers by making themselves seem better than you. Does it serve you to give any weight to the opinions of these last sorts? I think not.

My life would be so much easier if only it were ever that simple. But no, everybody’s got some little condition, quirk or hang-up. So instead of just arranging a hookup, we have to negotiate.

I definitely read bios. It very often keeps me from wasting time and energy on trying to make a connection that has zero chance. I might see a potential prospect, and the stats look good, but the text explains “Not really interested in older” - okay, then, not really a likely target. ”I love a man’s feet” - Nope. ”Looking for someone to cuddle with” - Run far away. [vers top] “I really like to get fucked in all my holes” - Riiiight. Vers Top, you say? ”I’ll make you bleed” - You’ll have to catch me first. ”Love piss, gunge, filth” - We’re not compatible, thank you. Any one of these conversations, once begun, could only end badly. Best to avoid them by spending just a couple of extra seconds reading the bio.